At what aperture did it become “terrible” in your estimation? And do you still have the files that you can share?
- - -
In my estimation it was terrible stopped all the way down. I would say it was bad even opened up one stop. It was surprising for a GM lens. I'll post photos if I have time.
"Stopped all the way down on that lens is f/32. (TYPO FIXED — originally wrote f/23 here) No one shoots a FF camera at f/32 except in truly unusual circumstances in which DOF is important and image sharpness is not. There is _normally_ a LOT of diffraction blur at f/32 on any lens on a FF camera. f/22 will also normally be quite soft.
I personally avoid shooting a high res FF camera at f/16 unless I'm willing to intentionally sacrifice detail for DOF.
gdanmitchell wrote:
At what aperture did it become “terrible” in your estimation? And do you still have the files that you can share?
- - -
I’ve never had a camera or lens shipped from B&H in just the manufacturer’s box. Perhaps you might ask B&H if they ship it in an enclosing box, or perhaps just request that they do this.
It could be an error on the website during checkout but gives me pause.
"Stopped all the way down on that lens is f/23. No one shoots a FF camera at f/32 except in truly unusual circumstances in which DOF is important and image sharpness is not. There is _normally_ a LOT of diffraction blur at f/32 on any lens on a FF camera. f/22 will also normally be quite soft.
I personally avoid shooting a high res FF camera at f/16 unless I'm willing to intentionally sacrifice detail for DOF.
This is not a lens flaw. It is how optics work.
The minimum aperture at 400mm doesn't look as bad as I remembered it. But, I think you'd have to agree that at 100mm it's pretty bad stopped down. As I mentioned, I never shoot stopped all the way down. And it's excellent wide open. I wanted to like this lens, but I didn't. If you like it, B&H might still have it available. For now I'll stick with the 200-600 G and the 300 GM which is my favorite lens.
EB-1 wrote:
BH has the 100-400 is stock, but a dire warning.
Packaging reveals contents: Manufacturer's shipping box may disclose what is inside. If discretion poses a concern, you may ship to another address or switch to Store Pickup.
Is it correct that BH or other stores are shipping the 100-400/4.5 without being in an outer carton? I don't care about discretion, but lens protection from impact! Normally I only see large products like printers or TVs/monitors, microwaved ovens, etc. shipped in the original box, but those heavy-duty boxes are designed for shipment without extra protection.
EBH
I had to go through 2 with Adorama and one was double boxed and one was just the manufacturer box. Very strange and I complained to them about this. They didn't have an explanation, however.
garyroach wrote:
The minimum aperture at 400mm doesn't look as bad as I remembered it. But, I think you'd have to agree that at 100mm it's pretty bad stopped down. As I mentioned, I never shoot stopped all the way down. And it's excellent wide open. I wanted to like this lens, but I didn't. If you like it, B&H might still have it available. For now I'll stick with the 200-600 G and the 300 GM which is my favorite lens.
No one who wants a truly sharp image is going to shoot at f/32 on FF. There’s no arguing with diffraction, and it doesn’t matter if you use a great lens or a terrible lens.
gdanmitchell wrote:
No one who wants a truly sharp image is going to shoot at f/32 on FF. There’s no arguing with diffraction, and it doesn’t matter if you use a great lens or a terrible lens.
As I mentioned, twice, I never shoot any lens fully stopped down. But, I expect more from a GM lens. And I've seen better GM lenses. In fact I would say that my 200-600 G is as good or better than the 100-400 that I had.
Of course the 100-400/4.5 by itself looks really nice.
EBH
The 100-400/1.4TC vs 200-600 is pretty much what my testing showed. For IQ they are pretty equal.
BUT....for AF the 100-400 shines and for balance and weight the 100-400 shines.
IQ is just one part of it. If IQ is most important and you want to save $$ then 200-600 is the better buy.
I also feel that the 100-400 is not a lens to buy if chasing 800mm. Neither is the 200-600. I think one should be buying the 400-800 or 600GM.
Interesting is I compared the TDP results of the 100-400 vs the 400GM at the different focal lengths and the 100-400 looks better at 400 and 560 but close at 800 (maybe more contrast in the centre but worth at the periphery). I also wouldn't bother with the 400GM if chasing 800mm.
garyroach wrote:
As I mentioned, twice, I never shoot any lens fully stopped down. But, I expect more from a GM lens. And I've seen better GM lenses. In fact I would say that my 200-600 G is as good or better than the 100-400 that I had.
That’s fine, and sharing an opinion that, in a general sense, one lens is better than another is useful information to add to the collection of others’ opinions.
My point is that your initial post dinged the 100-400 because you felt it wasn’t sharp stopped down, and then you shared “evidence” in the form of f/32 shots! No lens is sharp on FF at f/32, no matter the brand, focal length, or quality of the lens.
I’m sure that there are some valid critiques of this lens, as there are of any photographic equipment, but there’s no evidence at all of some problem related to stopping down. (If there was, I think we be reading reports from other users about such an odd issue. We aren’t.)
arbitrage wrote:
The 100-400/1.4TC vs 200-600 is pretty much what my testing showed. For IQ they are pretty equal.
BUT....for AF the 100-400 shines and for balance and weight the 100-400 shines.
IQ is just one part of it. If IQ is most important and you want to save $$ then 200-600 is the better buy.
I also feel that the 100-400 is not a lens to buy if chasing 800mm. Neither is the 200-600. I think one should be buying the 400-800 or 600GM.
Interesting is I compared the TDP results of the 100-400 vs the 400GM at the different focal lengths and the 100-400 looks better at 400 and 560 but close at 800 (maybe more contrast in the centre but worth at the periphery). I also wouldn't bother with the 400GM if chasing 800mm....Show more →
Thanks for your assessment in the field. I don't understand the part about the weight, because they are quite similar with the 1.4x on the 100-400. The 100-400+1.4x is also longer per the specs even without the TC. I would assume a decent A-S foot has enough length to balance it even with a TC.
arbitrage wrote:
The 100-400/1.4TC vs 200-600 is pretty much what my testing showed. For IQ they are pretty equal.
BUT....for AF the 100-400 shines and for balance and weight the 100-400 shines.
IQ is just one part of it. If IQ is most important and you want to save $$ then 200-600 is the better buy.
I also feel that the 100-400 is not a lens to buy if chasing 800mm. Neither is the 200-600. I think one should be buying the 400-800 or 600GM.
Interesting is I compared the TDP results of the 100-400 vs the 400GM at the different focal lengths and the 100-400 looks better at 400 and 560 but close at 800 (maybe more contrast in the centre but worth at the periphery). I also wouldn't bother with the 400GM if chasing 800mm....Show more →
To me, the 200-600 has been an exceptional value in the Sony lineup. And the 300 GM is an exceptional lens that takes teleconverters well. And I agree that there is more to a lens than IQ. I love the weight and handling of the 300 GM. I tried the 400-800 G and found that the weight and handling just weren't for me although the images were good. Everyone will have their own preferences for their own reasons. I always say, use what works for you.
gdanmitchell wrote:
That’s fine, and sharing an opinion that, in a general sense, one lens is better than another is useful information to add to the collection of others’ opinions.
My point is that your initial post dinged the 100-400 because you felt it wasn’t sharp stopped down, and then you shared “evidence” in the form of f/32 shots! No lens is sharp on FF at f/32, no matter the brand, focal length, or quality of the lens.
I’m sure that there are some valid critiques of this lens, as there are of any photographic equipment, but there’s no evidence at all of some problem related to stopping down. (If there was, I think we be reading reports from other users about such an odd issue. We aren’t.)...Show more →
There's also such a thing as copy variation. But, whatever the case, enjoy and have a good day.
